This week: Update on Congressional Reapportionment/Census Lawsuit; Suffolk County Seeks VRA Preclearance for Poll Sites; Register Now for April 1 Census Conference; Jan Vink on Modified Race Data from Census Bureau; Around the Nation
by Jeff Wice & Alexis Marking
CENSUS & REAPPORTIONMENT
Louisiana, et al. v. U.S. Department of Commerce, et al.: Will the Trump Administration Seek to Include Non-citizens in Congressional Apportionment?
Kansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and West Virginia brought this lawsuit in January seeking to base congressional apportionment on citizenship instead of residency (or the whole number of persons).
On March 2nd, the defendants U.S. Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau filed an unopposed motion for an extension of time until March 10th to respond to individual voters’ motion to intervene. The defendants had previously requested a two-week extension to respond to this motion, of which the Court granted on February 19th. However, the defendants argue that since they requested this extension, “new leadership has begun to onboard” at the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Census Bureau. As a result, the defendants have “sought the views of new leadership about this matter,” and requested another one-week extension to confer with these new leaders about the “appropriate response” to this motion.
The defendants conferred with all parties and the plaintiffs did not oppose the extension. The proposed intervenors on this motion also did not oppose the extension, so long as their deadline to file a reply is similarly extended.
On March 4th, the Court granted the defendants’ request for a seven-day extension until March 10th to respond. The Court also ordered an extension for the proposed intervenors’ deadline. The proposed intervenors will now have seven days after the defendants’ response to file a reply to the plaintiffs’ response. In the event that the defendants do not respond, then the proposed intervenors will have until March 17th.
On March 3rd, the defendants filed an opposed motion for stay. The defendants requested that the Court stay this case, including staying the deadlines regarding the responses to pending motions to intervene. The defendants argue that because new leadership at the DOC is in the process of onboarding, these leaders have not yet had time to determine the DOC’s approach to the Residence Rule and this litigation following Trump’s recent issuance of Executive Order 14148.
The defendants therefore requested an extension to have more time to “confer about the issues raised in this litigation” with the new DOC leadership. The plaintiffs and individual voters (potential intervenors) took no position on the stay. Santa Clara County (another potential intervenor) opposed entry of a stay prior to a resolution of its pending motion to intervene.
On March 6th, the case was stayed until further order of the Court. In consideration of the stay, the pending motions to intervene were stricken and shall be refiled by the Court (as well as the deadlines for any responsive briefing) when the stay is lifted. The parties shall file a joint status report on May 2nd, after which the Court will schedule a status conference.
N.Y. VOTING RIGHTS ACT
Suffolk County Submits Preclearance Request
The Suffolk County Board of Elections submitted a request to preclear the moving of early voting poll sites. Details can be found here: https://nyvra-portal.ag.ny.gov/details/101
CENSUS
Register Now for the April 1st N.Y.C. Census 2030 Conference
New York City activists can register now for a conference focused on organizing for the 2030 Decennial Census. The event will be held at New York Law School on Tuesday, April 1st from 9:00 AM to Noon. Organizers include New York City Council Member Julie Menin (who directed N.Y.C.’s 2020 census effort), the N.Y.C. Central Labor Council, and the N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute. Register here: https://nyls.wufoo.com/forms/q19nfln10ghm3va/
Jan Vink on New Census Bureau Modified Race Data
From Jan Vink, Extension Associate with Cornell University’s Program on Applied Demographics.:
“(Last week),the Census Bureau released the 2020 Modified Age and Race Census (MARC) file. These tables provide data from the 2020 Census in race categories that align with those used in vital records and administrative data (which may not include “Some Other Race”) and are consistent with those used in the Population Estimates Program. Data are available for the nation, states and counties by single year of age, sex, race and Hispanic origin.
The Census Bureau developed the MARC file by reassigning responses from the “Some Other Race” (SOR) category in the 2020 Census to the five race categories defined by the 1997 U.S. Office of Management and Budget revised standards for the collection, tabulation and presentation of federal data on race and ethnicity.
See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/technical-documentation/research/modified-race-data.html for more information including a description of the methodology.
—
This MARC file allows the Census Bureau to
- create intercensal estimates by characteristics, that is a time series from April 1, 2010 through April 1, 2020 that is consistent with both Censuses
- further analyze the quality of the 2020 Census by comparing it with the Demographic Analysis (DA)
- develop a new base for the population estimates, up to now the Census Bureau used the blended base which only used limited information from the 2020 Census, because the population estimates do not contain an “Other race” category
I started to look at some differences between the estimates.
The sources I used were:
- V20: Vintage 2020, which contains estimates from what we thought the Census counts would be BEFORE the Census was taken
- DHC: Census 2020 counts
- V23: The blended base population from Vintage 2023
- MARC: The new MARC fil
Findings on race
Estimates of New York State population by race:
|
|
|
V20 |
DHC |
V23 |
MARC |
|
Total population |
19,368,365 |
20,201,249 |
20,202,320 |
20,201,205 |
|
|
Non Hispanic |
White |
10,672,718 |
10,598,907 |
11,028,683 |
10,846,387 |
|
Black |
2,790,777 |
2,759,022 |
2,944,493 |
2,868,207 |
|
|
AIAN |
57,805 |
54,908 |
59,663 |
61,052 |
|
|
Asian |
1,739,776 |
1,916,329 |
1,837,656 |
1,966,061 |
|
|
Pacific Islander |
9,212 |
6,097 |
9,562 |
8,750 |
|
|
Other |
– |
197,107 |
– |
– |
|
|
Two or more races |
360,170 |
720,847 |
375,517 |
502,744 |
|
|
Hispanic |
3,737,908 |
3,948,032 |
3,946,746 |
3,948,004 |
|
The blended base (V23) generally used the total population and the total Hispanic population from the Census (DHC) for the blended base, but also the race composition from V20.
Most noticeable in this table are:
- the Non Hispanic Asian population, where the Census count was a lot higher then the 2020 Vintage and resulted in a blended base number lower than the Census. The MARC file is much closer to the DHC
- The Other race group that is only in the DHC and these person were assigned a different race in the MARC file
- The Census count for the “Two or more race” category was a lot higher in the 2020 Census than predicted in V20. This is partly due to the difference in collecting and processing race information which resulted in higher “Two or more race” counts. There were around 240 thousand people in the Census that were “Other Race” and something else. In the MARC file many of them will now be single race and thus the drop in NonHispanic two or more races in the MARC file.
If the MARC file was used instead of the blended base, the current estimates of race distribution would look a bit different which has impact on the ACS controls and denominators used in things like health.
Findings on Sex
|
|
DHC |
V23 |
MARC |
|
Male |
9,770,361 |
9,868,155 |
9,770,392 |
|
Female |
10,430,888 |
10,334,165 |
10,430,813 |
|
Sex ratio (males per 100 females) |
93.7 |
95.5 |
93.7 |
The blended base had relatively more males than the Census. In the MARC file the ratio is equal to the Census
Findings on Age
The Census age counts show a lot of age heaping, reflecting by peaks at ages ending in a 0 or a 5. The chat shows that the MARC file smoothed those peaks, but the overall pattern is very similar than that of the Census.
Compared with the blended base however, there are some noticeable differences. The Census counted less young children that the blended base shows. There are multiple publications that study this problem. The blended base numbers are largely based on a count of recent birth certificates and are considered of higher quality than the Census.
From age 15 through 30, the blended base is noticeably lower than the Census and for ages 40 through 60 higher. Differences are not as pronounced at older ages and left out of the chart.
The BERT (Base Evaluation Research Team) at the Census Bureau will now have the difficult task to determine what elements from the MARC file to use in future estimates. Taking the age distribution from the MARC file as is, will probably have some consequences for ACS controls and denominators, but also in the estimates process as especially domestic migration uses the age distribution to create age specific outflows and inflows.
AROUND THE NATION
ILLINOIS: The Illinois Supreme Court “looks poised” to review whether the state’s current legislative maps unconstitutionally favor the Democratic Party. Illinois House Minority Leader Tony McCombie (R) and five Republican voters filed this lawsuit in January, alleging that the state House map—drawn by the Illinois Legislature after the release of 2020 census data, then approved by the governor in September 2021—is a partisan gerrymander that unfairly favors Democrats.
The lawsuit argues that the statewide vote totals for the Democratic and Republican Parties have a “large discrepancy” with the percentage of seats they won. While Democratic candidates won fifty-five percent of the statewide vote in November 2024, they won a supermajority of the state House districts (more than sixty-six percent). The lawsuit also claims that the state House map violates the Free and Equal Election Clause of the Illinois Constitution, including its requirement that legislative districts be “compact, contiguous and substantially equal in population.”
The plaintiffs have now asked the Illinois Supreme Court to strike down the current map and appoint a “Special Master” to “draft a valid and constitutionally acceptable redistricting plan.”
MISSISSIPPI: Pending court approval, five Mississippi House seats will now be redecided in a November special election. This special election comes in response to an order from a federal three-judge panel, which determined last year that the Illinois Legislature did not create enough Black-majority districts when it redrew its legislative maps. The panel ordered Illinois to redraw its districts to create an additional majority-Black district in Chickasaw County. As a result, the state legislature approved a resolution for a November special election even though the five legislators were just elected in 2023.
The House plan will not require incumbent legislators to run against one another. The primary change in the new map will make the District 22 seat in Chickasaw County a majority-Black voter district. The state legislature also voted to redraw House District 16, House District 36, House District 39, and House District 41. The current legislators for these districts (in order) include Jon Lancaster, Rickey Thompson, Karl Gibbs, Dana McLean, and Kabir Karriem.
According to the resolution, the qualifying period will begin on May 19th and end on May 30th. The primary election will be held on August 5th, with a potential primary runoff on September 2nd. The general election will then take place on November 4th.
Additionally, the federal courts have ordered the Mississippi Senate to redraw its districts and create a Black-majority district in the areas encompassing DeSoto County and Hattiesburg. Once the state legislature passes a redistricting plan, the federal courts must approve.
NORTH CAROLINA: The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of North Carolina have submitted an amicus brief in the North Carolina Court of Appeals, asking the court to reject Judge Jefferson Griffin’s attempt to “invalidate” 65,500 ballots cast by North Carolina voters in the 2024 state Supreme Court race.
Although the election remains uncertified, it is undisputed that incumbent Justice Allison Riggs received 734 more votes than Judge Griffin in the 2024 election. However, after the election, Griffin filed a petition alleging that “the North Carolina Board of Elections had, for nearly two decades, improperly accepted voter registrations without the inclusion of a driver’s license or social security number.” The petition also alleged that “the board had improperly invited and accepted overseas absentee ballots without requiring photo identification.” As a result, Griffin asked the state’s courts to reject 65,500 ballots.
The ACLU and ACLU-NC’s amicus brief argues that negating 65,000 votes would violate the North Carolina Constitution and “binding precedents” from the North Carolina Supreme Court because the state’s voters “relied on these longstanding and formal practices.” The brief also argues that Griffin’s petition shows no evidence that these 65,500 voters (if properly instructed), “would have failed to register and vote using what the petition deems the right procedures.” According to this brief, “Even if the board had implemented unlawful procedures—which, as the board and the respondent have shown, it did not—otherwise eligible voters should not pay for those procedural errors.”
TEXAS: The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has dropped its claims against Texas. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2021 by the DOJ (under the Biden administration) and alleged that Texas’s newly-enacted congressional and legislative maps violated Section 2 of the federal Voting Rights Act (VRA). The DOJ claimed that the redistricting plans, which were drawn using 2020 census data, ignored the growing minority population in Texas and consequently diluted the voting power of these communities. The lawsuit was later consolidated with several lawsuits that involved similar claims.
In late January, a federal judge ordered the DOJ to inform the court whether the DOJ, now under the Trump administration, planned to continue their claims against the state. In his order, District Court Judge Jerry E. Smith cited Pam Bondi’s appointment as Attorney General and the DOJ’s order to freeze its Civil Rights Division as “possible influence” that the DOJ may have changed their position in this lawsuit. Judges customarily do not ask the DOJ to restate their position in any ongoing litigation because of a change in administration.
Although the DOJ has dismissed their claims, litigation is still ongoing. Pro-voting groups such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, Mi Familia Vota, and the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project will continue their lawsuits against the current state maps. Trial on this issue is tentatively set for May.
INSTITUTE RESOURCES
The New York Elections, Census and Redistricting Institute has archived many resources for the public to view on our Digital Commons Page.
Our Redistricting Resources page contains resources on the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act. You can access the page
here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_resources/
Archived Updates can be accessed
here: https://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/redistricting_roundtable_updates/
Please share this weekly update with your colleagues. To be added to the mailing list, please contact Jeffrey.wice@nyls.edu
The N.Y. Elections, Census & Redistricting Institute is supported by grants from the New York Community Trust, New York Census Equity Fund and the New York City Council. This report was prepared by Jeff Wice & Alexis Marking.